ASHOK MALIK Vs. SOGA IMPEX PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allowed, subject to the deficiency being rectified.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record. I have also heard the learned counsel for the State, who has appeared in response to the advance copy having been served on him.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 19.12.2006 in the abovementioned complaint cases on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety for the like amount and thereafter has been granted permanent exemption. However, on 2.3.2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had issued non-bailable warrants on account of the non-appearance of the petitioner as well as his counsel. It has been contended that the petitioner had filed an application for cancellation of warrant under Section 70 (2) of Cr.P.C., however, the said application was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and it was directed that his proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. be issued.